Tommy Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Dear scientists, I've come across a wonderful product called Suunto t6. Suunto claims the product calculates EPOC, VO2 and many other things from heart rate. See more at http://www.suuntot6.com The research behind the product can be found at http://www.firstbeattechnologies.com --> research background Can you explain is the research and the product valid because many wanna-be-scientists swear it's not. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 not being a physician, the heartbeat interval although important, may be significant in diagnosis for certain physiological elements, but I can`t see how it would be a "catch all" type of instrument, even if this wrist watch was as accurate as a Lab test or propper ECG monitor. it`s a neat gadget though and certainly a must for the Family Hypochondriac or the man who has everything seriously though, the sites you gave don`t really provide any "Scientific" data, making it impossible to give a REAL answer. the Jury`s open here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted October 12, 2004 Author Share Posted October 12, 2004 not being a physician' date=' the heartbeat interval although important, may be significant in diagnosis for certain physiological elements, but I can`t see how it would be a "catch all" type of instrument, even if this wrist watch was as accurate as a Lab test or propper ECG monitor. it`s a neat gadget though and certainly a must for the Family Hypochondriac or the man who has everything seriously though, the sites you gave don`t really provide any "Scientific" data, making it impossible to give a REAL answer. the Jury`s open here [/quote'] It's actually for professional/olympic level or very serious athletes. Already used by athletes in the English Premier League, NHL, WTA etc. Does someone usually answer these questions? Am I in the right place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Does someone usually answer these questions? Am I in the right place... this is a forum, things are discussed, if people ask, people answer... this question was only posted less than 7 hours before tommy's post, thus people didnt give enough time to answer. looking at the product, it seems valid enough in that it makes realsitic links between the input data and the wanted output. however the accurcay of this data, whilsts quite good is not neccessarily amazing and certain 'anomalies' could make this product seem inacurate, though for the majority average i think it should seem to work ok, esp. for 'normal' people (ie. not sports maniacs and pros) should be satisfactory for them too though. just my view though, lets see what others think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Some of the perameters this thing measures are direct (e.g. heart rate), whilst others are based on assumptions (e.g. energy consumption). As a direct measure, heart rate and respiration can provide useful data, but even then, these measures are influenced by other factors. There are certain measures, e.g. oxygen consumption, which would be better taken using a pulse-oxymeter. Respiration is a rough guide, but it measures breaths per minute, not oxygen consumption. Thus, people with respiratory problems can have a high resp. rate at rest. Efficiency of the heart and lungs determine how much oxygen is taken in, and a pulse-oxymeter takes a direct measure of blood oxygen saturation (using a non-invasive probe which clips to a finger). As a guide for athletes in training I think the estimates it provides would be useful. Athletes tend to be fairly fit to begin with, so the instrument is less likely to be way out on the assumptions it makes. For others, say, obese people wanting to exercise to lose weight, or people with cardiac problems exercising for health reasons, I think it would be less useful. As I said, some of the measures it takes are based on assumptions, e.g. energy use. This parameter is subject to large between-individual variance. Very unfit or overweight people use significantly more energy than an athlete to perform the same task. So, without programming in the actual energy use of an individual to start with, the measure provided by this instrument would be a 'guestemate' at best. Perhaps useful for measuring relative change, but no use if you needed accurate measures. In short, I think the validity of this instrument would depend upon the degree to which you could program in individual-specific baseline data. If you can't do this, then many of the measures it provides are simply estimates based upon normative values for population parameters, and thus do not account for individual differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 The software wants the user to write in age, gender, how much exercise has done previously, height, weight, smoker/non-smoker etc. Based on that, would you say it's a useful tool for an athlete? What I've heard so far from other users is that it's especially handy in telling when you train too hard because that's just as bad or even worse than vice versa. It's not easy to train right, you know. Some of the perameters this thing measures are direct (e.g. heart rate)' date=' whilst others are based on assumptions (e.g. energy consumption). As a direct measure, heart rate and respiration can provide useful data, but even then, these measures are influenced by other factors. There are certain measures, e.g. oxygen consumption, which would be better taken using a pulse-oxymeter. Respiration is a rough guide, but it measures breaths per minute, not oxygen consumption. Thus, people with respiratory problems can have a high resp. rate at rest. Efficiency of the heart and lungs determine how much oxygen is taken in, and a pulse-oxymeter takes a direct measure of blood oxygen saturation (using a non-invasive probe which clips to a finger). As a guide for athletes in training I think the estimates it provides would be useful. Athletes tend to be fairly fit to begin with, so the instrument is less likely to be way out on the assumptions it makes. For others, say, obese people wanting to exercise to lose weight, or people with cardiac problems exercising for health reasons, I think it would be less useful. As I said, some of the measures it takes are based on assumptions, e.g. energy use. This parameter is subject to large between-individual variance. Very unfit or overweight people use significantly more energy than an athlete to perform the same task. So, without programming in the actual energy use of an individual to start with, the measure provided by this instrument would be a 'guestemate' at best. Perhaps useful for measuring relative change, but no use if you needed accurate measures. In short, I think the validity of this instrument would depend upon the degree to which you could program in individual-specific baseline data. If you can't do this, then many of the measures it provides are simply estimates based upon normative values for population parameters, and thus do not account for individual differences.[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 from what I can tell from your post, it doesn`t seem to bad little gadget to use when training, although I don`t expect it`ll be anywhere near as accurate as the propper Lab kit, or patch transmition monitors. I`de certainly use one one if Athletics were my bent (and I could afford it LOL). it`s certainly usefull as a general Guideline! and so, a good product if it`s all it claims to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 The software wants the user to write in age' date=' gender, how much exercise has done previously, height, weight, smoker/non-smoker etc. Based on that, would you say it's a useful tool for an athlete? What I've heard so far from other users is that it's especially handy in telling when you train too hard because that's just as bad or even worse than vice versa. It's not easy to train right, you know.[/quote'] Based on that information, I think it would probably be a useful tool for athletes. Many of the measures an athlete is interested in are based on relative changes anyway. Like people on a diet, who are more interested in weight lost per-week than a highly accurate measure of their original weight, athletes are more interested in relative changes over their regime than highly accurate baseline measures. Accuracy in cross-sectional measures are only important for diagnostic purposes, or to compare the measured parameters between individuals. As long as the instrument is reliable, a certain degree of innacuracy due to individual differences is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 ... was that the best review I can get or is someone else going to have a say too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Tommy, with all due respect. no one here can give it a review, let alone a good or bad one. I`m sure if you sent a product sample to Glider or Blike for instance then you could get a more informed answer, based on the product. Rather than a website and your posts. that would be the only FAIR way logicaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 As YT says, nobody can review an item they have never actually seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 The only interestng thing that I know about heartbeat (but I'm not 100% sure if correct) is that when it starts to be very periodically (equal time measure) that there most likely somehing wrong is about to happen. Can anyone confirm? (about not correcting heartbeat anymore or something) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 I didnt mean review but a 2nd opinion on the thinking behind the product, based on the research background... Anyway, thanks for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tgspinner Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I just contacted them regarding the accuracy of their T6 and this is what they sent back: The accuracy of Suunto T6 body parameters with artifact-free heart rate interval data in full range from rest to maximal exercise. Physiological measure typical values mean error units accuracy accuracy 8/10 --------------------------------- ------------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------- -------------------- respiration rate 20-40 +/-1.3 breaths/min 93% 96% oxygen consumption 20-65 +/- 1.5 ml/kg/min 88% 91% ventilation (V02) 30-100 +/- 6.8 l/min 86% 88% energy expenditure 8-17 +/- 0.5 kcal/min 89% 91% peak EPOC 10-250 +/- 10.7 ml/kg 93% 93% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmi Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Hi Tommy, in my last update of my online document on the t6, I enclosed feeddback of SUUNTO on various aspects of the t6. Also on the items you issued. References to papers are also given. See especially Section 8.2. of http://users.telenet.be/wy/sport/t6/t6%20Accurate%20Speed-Distance%20Measuremnt.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now